Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn’t what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

The beat goes on.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed called, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” They supported the bad arguments in the piece by including a list of 16 scientists who signed on in agreement with the editorial. The WSJ, as you might have guessed, has a history of anthropomorphic global warming denial. While not a bastion of liberal thinking and a conservative magazine of some influence, Forbes, of all places, responded with a piece called, “Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal.” After pointing out several of the flaws in the WSJ article, the Forbes piece goes on to say this about the obvious bias at the WSJ:

…But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation…

I came by the WSJ piece during a little debate I was having with a conservative fellow who thought that all sides of the climate change debate, as well as creationism, should not be “banned” from being taught in science classrooms. I may have convinced him that creationism is pseudo-science, but without missing a beat, he cited the WSJ article as evidence that AGW isn’t happening. And while that part of the debate is still in limbo, and from a scientific point of view, not as easily dismissed as a flat out pseudoscience like creationism is, it does fall into the category of scientific denial, which was what started the debate, after I made the suggestion that while the Left has its share of scientific denial, (anti-vax and other new-age claims), on a political level, the Right has far more anti-scientific views, whether motivated by religion or economics, and are more given to pushing those views into legislation at the state and federal level, or by executive order, as Bush did when he limited federal funding for stem cell research to existing strains.

AGW denial is pervasive. Articles like the one in the WSJ, the noise makers on Fox News and GOP politicians have kept it alive and well, even though much of the denial that comes to us by way of the conservative echo machine is built on very shaky ground, given the scientific consensus and evidence to the contrary. Dissent is one thing, and even with a consensus of scientists saying that AGW is at least in part a culprit in climate change, it’s unlikely that every single climate scientist will agree. And that’s fine. That’s science for you. But to build an entire case around what a handful of scientists who are not convinced have to say, and suggesting that this small handful of scientists are the ones we should be listening to, only (and that does seems to be what many conservative politicians and the conservative media is saying), and to suggest that the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is nothing more than a money-driven fraud, is a slide into the realm of pseudoscience, even if it is on an issue that is genuinely scientific in nature.

Which brings me to my pick, Skeptical Science: Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism. While the media has been very sketchy in presenting the facts about global warming, for various reasons, there are Internet sites that get right to the heart of the matter, and tackle the “skepticism” head on. No messing around with balance, as if both sides of every scientific debate is equally valid. I’m talking about sites that are able to present the issues without the constraints or demands that may come from network sponsors, network ownership and/or political bias. The sites I have in mind are about the science, and the science only. And on the AGW front, Skeptical Science is one such site.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg, “it’s all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism”. As one person put it, “the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove”. However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

The site is updated almost daily with news articles and comments from readers. I’m not going to list the menu subjects. Suffice it to say that the site is comprehensive and a very valuable resource in the battle against bad science and pseudoscience with regard to the global warming debate. Please visit, Skeptical Science: Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism. Thanks!

SkeptiQuote:

It is better to ask some of the questions than to know all the answers.

— James Thurber

Chat:

Wednesday, February 6th:Dr. Mabuse is back as chat moderator. First topic out was music, specifically Led Zeppelin and uncredited influences and blatant steals. Then we pondered over Dennis Markuse’s reappearance. Apparently the treatment isn’t working as effectively as we had hoped. Dr. Mabuse explained how gun laws for hand guns work in Sweden (very different from USA). Someone was having chat problems with a Mac computer… Dangerous exploits while drinking. We finished up the chat by discussing the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate.

“‘Know Thyself’ advised the ancient Greek sages at a time when philosophers defined us as rational animals. Rationality was thought of as an ideal largely achievable by controlling the emotions and avoiding logical fallacies. Today, we know better. Biology and neuroscience have exposed the brain as a great deceiver. Unconscious biases drive us to believe and do things that the conscious mind explains in self-serving stories, making us appear more rational to ourselves than we really are. Modern science has taught us that rationality involves much more than just controlling the emotions and avoiding fallacies. Today’s rational animal — what we call the critical thinker — must understand the unconscious biases that are directing many of our most important judgments and decisions. The Critical Thinker’s Dictionary explores the insights of ancient and modern philosophers along with the latest findings in such fields as neuroscience and behavioral economics to lay out the many obstacles and snares that await anyone committed to a rational life. The Critical Thinker’s Dictionary isn’t a collection of dry definitions, but a colorful, three-dimensional portrait of the major obstacles to critical thinking and what we can do to overcome them.”

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.